The Climate Realism Show – LIVE every Friday at 1 p.m. ET
With Joe Biden handing off the presidency to “a new generation” in Kamala Harris, her record and public statements shows she is even more radical on environment and energy policies than her old boss. For instance, Harris thoroughly endorsed every bit of the radical “Green New Deal,” she pledged to ban all fracking in the United States, she has fully embraced the “Net Zero by 2030” agenda, and has called for changing the American diet by restricting (or even banning) the production of beef.
On Episode #120 of The Climate Realism Show, we will this troubling record, examine the claim that Europe just recorded its hottest day ever, worry about our future arrest as “climate criminals,” revisit the ongoing environmental disaster off Nantucket due to a single broken wind turbine, and more “Crazy Climate News of the Week.
Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET with The Heartland Institute’s Jim Lakely, Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, and Linnea Lueken. Join the chat and we’ll try to answer your questions on the air.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
change to dietary guidlines != banning meat
Other examples?
Let’s go
BrandonBrendaWell, I’m certainly not tempted to eat Kalamata.
And that’s not a bias against black / olive produce.
It’s more to do with my reservations about the probity & provenance of that particular product.
I have read that it was well-used well past its original “Use By” date.
Kamala is more extreme than the cabal that was using Biden as a dysfunctional marionette for the past 3.5 years
That should be no surprise, because she took her brain-washed gray matter from California to Washington, DC.
Kamala will be used by that cabal in the same manner as Biden.
At least, she knows how to manage a teleprompter, or a flight of stairs, and she has got that big stupid smile, and that cackling laugh
I can’t tell. Are you for or against banning meat?
During the next presidential term there must be a growing realization that net zero is not at all reasonable, regardless if it is 2030, 2050 or 2100 or who gets to be president – it costs lifes!
Also, it does not seems to be what the US citizen want (for example shown in the Ford EV sales posted on WUWT yesterday)
I could see a global trend of moderates from various parties slowly but certainly backing of such projects.. while trying not to cause too much stir..
I need to see a solid defn of ‘net-zero’.
Is it a 24 hr time frame? 1-yr time frame? 30yr time frame?
How long do I have, to be considered net zero, to get my contribution of CH4 & CO2 & NO & H2O out of the atmosphere? Am I allowed to simply remove CO2 to mitigate my increases of CH4 and H2O?
If I buy a crapload of irrigated farmland & stop irrigation, do I get great big credits for reducing water vapor? Are those credits transferable as CO2 mitigation?
I need to see all of the the net-zero details/rules/standards before I jump in with both feet.
BTW, NET zero stands for No Electricity Transmission, i.e., no as in zero
The World energy consumption, all uses, is 80% from fossil, and about 10% hydro and 8% nuclear,
The rest is occasional wind and solar, lots of ugly installations everywhere, but minimal production
In New England, thousands of pieces of blades are washing onto the beaches, which have been closed, because the LONG LASTING slivers enter your skin and cause infections.
As soon as Trump comes in, he will put an environmental halt to all wind and solar.
No wonder the FBI, etc., have him in their bullseye
Kamala wants everyone to eat bugs.It’s either that or word salad.
She tries REAL hard to appear smarter than she is….and of course this only has the opposite effect.
Climate is not even remotely understood by the experts. Just look at the wayward decisions of their best mathematical models.How can politicians, most of whom do not have a scientific bone in their bodies make decisions based on the guesswork or vested interests of the main stream.
There are “climate experts?”
Love to meat one.